Note: Nearly 12,000 persons are
eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share
the same name or similar names. All discipline reports
should be read carefully for names, addresses and bar
numbers.

NAME WITHHELD
DismissalOn April 10, 2003, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed
a disciplinary proceeding in which the bar had alleged
misconduct by the accused lawyer in two separate legal
matters. In the first matter, the bar alleged that the
lawyer violated DR 7-101(A)(2), prohibiting the knowing
advancement of an unwarranted claim, when he filed various
claims and asserted certain defenses in state and federal
court over a period of years to forestall the foreclosure
of real property his clients had purchased on contract
from the sellers . However, the court concluded that
there was a basis under the law for the lawyer’s actions
such that the bar did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the actions were unwarranted.

In the second matter, the bar alleged
that the lawyer violated DR 6-101(A) (prohibiting incompetent
representation) and DR 6-101(B) (prohibiting neglect
of a legal matter) when he represented a client in
a domestic relations matter. A trial panel found violations
of both rules. However, the court concluded that the
lawyer’s preparation for the divorce trial was not
incompetent, given the lack of complexity of the legal
matter. The court also found that, when the lawyer’s
representation was viewed as a whole, he did not neglect
the client’s matter.

DOYLE L. SCHIFFMAN
OSB #64097
Roseburg
Form B resignationEffective July 19, 2003, the Oregon Supreme Court
accepted the Form B resignation of Roseburg lawyer Doyle
L. Schiffman. At the time of resignation, the bar was
investigating allegations that Schiffman had failed to
timely file personal income tax returns for a number
of years. Those allegations, if proven, may implicate
DR 1-102(A)(2) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Schiffman was admitted to practice in
1964. Schiffman’s resignation recited that client files
and records have been or will be placed in the custody
of Roseburg lawyer Kenneth J. Dresser.

DAVID R. KLUGE
OSB #78435
Sheridan
Two-year suspensionOn April 10, 2003, the Oregon Supreme Court issued
an opinion suspending Sheridan lawyer David R. Kluge
from the practice of law for two years. The suspension
is to run consecutively with a three-year suspension
imposed by the court in an earlier disciplinary case, In
re Kluge, 332 Or 251, 27 P3d 102 (2001).

Kluge worked both as general manager
and legal counsel for a corporate employer. Another
employee who had left the company filed employment
discrimination litigation against the employer, alleging
that Kluge’s action as the employee’s direct supervisor
violated state and federal law. Kluge undertook to
represent the employer in that litigation. The supreme
court determined that Kluge violated DR 5-101(A) (self-interest
conflict) and DR 5-102(C) (prohibition on attorney
as a witness) when he represented the corporate employer
in litigation in which Kluge’s own conduct was at issue.

The court also found that Kluge engaged
in misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3)
when he presented to one judge a motion to disqualify
another judge without informing the motions judge that
the judge to be disqualified had already made a substantive
ruling in the case. Kluge also failed to inform the
disqualified judge or opposing counsel of the motion,
a second violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) because he knowingly
elected to disregard the rules requiring service on
these persons. This same conduct was found to be an
improper ex parte contact in violation of DR
7-110(B) and conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).

Finally, the court found that Kluge failed
to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of his conduct
in violation of DR 1-103(C).

Graham represented a husband and wife
in their civil dispute with a contractor over workmanship
concerns related to their custom home. It was agreed
that the clients would provide assistance in gathering
documents, to attempt to minimize the costs of litigation.
The clients gathered the documents Graham requested.
However, Graham misplaced or lost at least a portion
of these documents.

In addition, Graham failed to provide
the clients with a copy of their respective deposition
testimonies at any time prior to the scheduled arbitration
hearing. One of the depositions was misfiled by Graham
and could not be located in his office. Graham was
able to obtain that deposition transcript from opposing
counsel immediately before the arbitration hearing,
but without sufficient time for his clients to review
it. Graham was unable to produce the other deposition
transcript, despite requests from his clients and the
bar.

The stipulation recited that Graham was
admonished in 2002 for failing to promptly deliver
client property and had substantial experience in the
practice of law, having been admitted in California
in 1977 and in Oregon in 1998. Graham did not act with
a dishonest or selfish motive and fully cooperated
in the investigation of his conduct.